Subject: RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:28:25 -0800

> Pekka Savola
> Exactly.  As we have been saying for years not,
> we must aim for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6,
> not replacing IPv4 with IPv6.

IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very
reason it is not being deployed. As of transition mechanisms, they're
not good enough to run an IPv6-only network, which in turns makes
dual-stack mandatory.
 
Michel.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:43:16 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote:
> reason it is not being deployed. 

Some think it's worth the price.  In many cases, the price (in terms
of money, at least) is zero.

In any case, the users are given the opportunity to run applications
which leverage IPv6, with or without support from their ISPs or sites.
If they don't want to, that's another issue..

> As of transition mechanisms, they're not good enough to run an
> IPv6-only network, which in turns makes dual-stack mandatory.

No problem, because IPv6-only networks don't make sense anyway.

However, the transition mechanisms that have been deployed seem to be
good enough to enable dual-stack deployments.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings